1) Not necessarily, there are repeat offenders. 2) But what about the land for them? If I had to choose between a college and a prison in my hometown, it's be the college 3) Taking away somebodys life [/b][/quote] 1. Prison security isn't 100% fool proof but it is enough 2. I didn't necessarily mean building more prisons in population settlements, rural areas can be used 3. Taking away somebody's freedom is worse than taking their life IMO
1) Security? No mate, I didn't mean escaping, I meant offending again when they got out 2) I'd still rather spend the money on public facilities. Money is a bigger issue than building land 3) Not IMO. When you know you're going to die, there's a natural instinct there to be scared. In prison, yeah, you're scared for a while, but it becomes a daily routine, life, and you'd get used to it.
Occasionally there's some psychopath who's released way ahead of the end of their sentence, and they don't all come out as born-again evangelists or whatever.
No. I don't support it. for 2 reasons. 1. For some of those sick people, death is the easy way out. prison is the best way. where they will learn that if they kill/rape whatever they will be shoved in a cell for however long and suffer, rather than taking the (usualy) quick way out and not really suffering for what they did (when i say not really suffering, i mean their suffering (if they were put to death) would be nothing compared to that of the family and friends of victims and victims of their crimes themselves.) also, 2. What good is another dead person. don't forget, they are somebodys son/daughter. so what is the point in causing more sorrow and upsetting more people, when killing the killer does not bring back the dead. it will not solve anything. rather, make things worse. I used to think it was a good idea. but recently my opinion has really changed. EDIT: I didn't vote as my reason has nothing to do with how humane things are.
Personally, i believe in the powers of rehabilitation. I think that it really depends on the situation. I'd say that 90% of the time, murderers wouldn't kill again if they got a sentence with the chance of parole in 5+ years.
That's a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level.
That's a fair point. What I meant to say from the start was that capital punishment should be reserved for people like Haigh, Gein, Shipman, people on that level. [/b][/quote] I don't know any of them.
I don't know any of them. [/b][/quote] J.G Haigh murdered people, drank their blood and dissolved the corpses in sulphuric acid. Ed Gein made furniture and other sick shit out of corpses. Howard Shipman is the doctor who abused his position to kill around 250 people, which makes him the most prolific serial killer ever.
This one's kind of hard for me....... I don't know my stance on this issue yet I guess, I think that the issue would have to hit a little bit closer to home for me to decide. I do know that if somebody killed somebody that I love I wouldn't want them to be sentenced to death, I'd rather them be in prison for the rest of their lives they deserve to live and see what they did was wrong.... maybe suffer a bit internally. guilt and all of that crap.
What about the fact that most people in this thread agrees with me that the death sentence is inhumane? An argument put forward by the victims of crime suggest that offenders of heinous crimes such as third degree murder are punished by the ultimate sanction of capital punishment. Capital punishment in most people’s minds includes death by execution to the offender in most countries. Australia in the 1960’s ended the death row. However, some other countries aren’t as humane and fortunate as us. They have a higher moral conviction to deliver the ultimate penalty to the offenders. Fortunately Australia stopped its hanging and retired the noose for good with the last person to be hung as history will record unjustly, Ronald Ryan. The most famous hanging in Australian history was the hanging of Ned Kelly. The bushranger who ran the famous Kelly gang. However, Ned Kelly was wrongly accused of the crime of shooting a policeman. It was actually his brother Dan Kelly, who was the perpetrator. However, when you compare the Australian method of carrying out the death sentence to the ways of capital punishment of other countries, for example: • Lethal injection • Electric chair (Texas and Mississippi still use this method) • Being trampled by an elephant (its true…Asian and African countries mainly) • Firing squadron of 5 men armed with rifles • The stocks • Gas chamber • Exile In countries where it has been abolished, debate is sometimes revived by particularly brutal murders, though few countries have brought it back after abolition. In 2001 there were 3,048 reported cases in 31 countries. 90% of the deaths occurred in four countries. The People's Republic of China carried out 2,468 executions. Iran killed 139 people, Saudi Arabia 79 and the United States 66 (down from 85). In 2000 there had been 1,457 executions. The People’s Republic of China has executed 20,000 since 1990 with 1,781 people executed between April and July 2001 in a "Strike Hard" crime crackdown. In most countries that have capital punishment, it is used to punish only murder and/or for war-related crimes. In some countries like the People's Republic of China, even non-violent crimes, like drug and business related crimes, are punished with capital punishment. The death penalty is a controversial political issue, particularly in democracies where it is retained. Australian society believes in justice but we only hold our justice to life behind bars. Not taking of lives. However, there are criminals that deserve death for their heinous acts. The only reasons that we hold criminals behind bars for a lifetime of punishment who have committed heinous crimes is because Australians believe: • The death penalty is murder. • This is a human rights violation. • Torture and cruelty are wrong. • Many executions are messed up • Criminal proceedings are imperfect. • Racism is sometimes involved • It can encourage police misconduct as in the incident described in the documentary film The Thin Blue Line. Murder is wrong; therefore the death penalty is wrong. No matter what way you think about it, you are still taking a life. The offender is still human, and that person still has their humane rights; to be treated equal. Many executions are messed up and the executed suffer extended pain in dying, and even those who die instantly suffer extreme mental torture leading up to and during the preliminaries of the execution process. Many people facing the death penalty have been acquitted, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others, however, have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. Whilst criminal trials not involving the death penalty can involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for mistakes to be corrected. At least in the United States, poor people and those from ethnic minorities are more likely to be executed than whites convicted of similar crimes. Hence, its application is selective and unfair. Additionally, it is argued that the race of the victim can also affect the likelihood of the application of the death penalty, which again is unfair. In the late 1970s, an innocent man named Randall Adams was framed by the Dallas County Police Department in Texas for a notorious murder of a police officer because they knew the more likely suspect, David Harris, was still a minor and thus not qualified for the death penalty so Adams had to serve as a scapegoat to execute. Many political attempts to renew the death sentence have failed. For Australian society has always had a lifetime behind bars. Even though we are strong allies with America and other countries that enforce brutal capital punishment, we choose to be independent from their judicial system and create a world and an environment where we set an example that not only enforces human rights, but also enforces the legal system.
Don't forget, the victim had all these human rights too. The criminal didn't think much of their rights, did they? Therefore, the punishment that fits the crime is to strip the criminal of his human rights. Murder for murderers = fair. They murder,they get murdered. Sounds fair enough to me. Killing was a human rights violation. Say the death penalty was around in Britain today. When they killed the person, they would know what would happen if they got caught. They act, they get the consequences. Whilst wrong, torture and cruelty can be effective. In some cases it's impossible to sweet-talk a criminal. If they get messed up, bad luck for the criminal. They shouldn't have comitted the crime in the first place. Racism is always going to be a big problem in society. But I'll go onto a completely different tangent if I start on that. Surely the police must have a reason for "misconducting"? Basically, my point here is: Say the death sentence was around today, in your country. A criminal commited a crime. The criminal would know that they would be sentenced to death, and they would have to accept that. They would know what the punishment was, yet they chose to do the crime. Therefore, they pretty much chose to be killed.
I believe that a human being should only be denied the rights they have denied to others. Although the death penalty should only be used if it's been 100% proven that the individual is guilty of their charges... Also, I think that we should be doing more to prevent people from becoming killers n' such, rather than bringing back capital punishment to help the indigestion in prisions... People are just being lazy by doing that...
I agree with all but the last bit. There is no way you can stop crimes of passion, you will never be able to prevent crime completely.
Lethal injection and the electric chair aren't nearly as bad as what some people do to get themselves a death sentence. You could say that a crime of passion isn't necessarily worthy of a death sentence, like if the crime was heat of the moment. Stuff like that could be down to, say, an anger problem that could actually be dealt with.
You aren't killing to "show" that it's wrong, you're doing it to get rid of scum. Link: 1)The point of killing them is so that we can sleep easy in our beds at night, knowing there is no possibility they can escape, nor that they will kill again when they are let out. what I don't like about prison is that life sentences are not life sentences, they're about 15 years max, I'd say. 2) It's what always happens. They'll test about 80 women using a new shampoo, and say that "60% of women notice they have less split ends, blah blah." I know the numbers aren't accurate, it was just an example. 3) The emphasis was on cheaper. 4) Of course, every case is different, but what you don't mention is that in some cases, it IS crystal clear who's the killer, you're just referring to a small handful of crimes where people have been found innocent. [/b][/quote] Ah yes, eliminating "scum" by becoming scum. The ends, you'll find, do not hallow or justify the means. 1) Can you? Can you rightfully say that you'll sleep better at night? You're saying that you'll sleep better at night knowing that the state did nothing to find out WHY things happened, they just perscribed capital punishment as a pill to treat the symptoms? I feel safe in assuming that we'd all sleep better at night if causality was found and treated, instead of this sort of social amputation you call justice. 15 years? And where did you obtain that figure from? You seem to be making quite a few assumptions in your argument. 2) Really? Always? Come now, I don't believe there's any foundation for what you're trying to propose. Cosmetics is one thing, by criminal psychology? If you'd like to post your statistical findings, please, be my guest. 3) And are you so sure of that? Is it cheaper? You seem, again, to be making quite a few assumptions without taking the time to prove your premises. I'm not necessarily proposing opposite, but consider the doubt that surrounds your proposition. Does it take more money to feed, clothe, and house an individual for 50, 60 years, or does it take more money to pay the courts, judges, jury, for all the court appeals, for the means of death, and to food, house, and clothe the individual for the average amount of time spent on death row? 4) Yes, but as I said, the fact alone that such doubt exists would be enough to reconsider such permanent "non" treatment. You see, we're not quite talking about shampoo here, we're talking about human life.
but why waste more money killing them? why cant u keep them alive? [/b][/quote] What are you talking about??? 1 Bullet=Very cheap Years of additional food, clothing, etc=Much more expensive.